(Galfisk) Does "quite a way" imply overkill? Yes Is something done to someone's mother?No Are you referring to an action? Yes Series of actions? More this A method? Not sure what you mean. Crime involved? No Death? No Specific people involved?Yes

(Jenburdoo) Is one the mother of the other? YesA mother and her adult son? This Other relative?No

Oedipus Rex involved?No

Is a specific science involved? No A pseudoscience? Yes, in a sense. Is a law or regulation involved?No

Are location or time-period/era relevant? Not really, present day.

(Tommyp) The puzzle statement says "Mommy Issues", are more than one issue relevant?No, only one relevant one. The way to deal with issues is overkill - is it dangerous?No embarrassing for mother? No just more work than needed?Yes

pseduoscience: religion? divination? oracle? astrology, tarot, I Ching, numerology, shamanism relevant? son = the HAM, mommy = the HAF, or FA? Son's job: science involved? or "pseudoscience"? is he an artist(svv; includes writer, painter, potter, glass-blower, actor...)/healer/consultant/engineer/salesman/proprietor/laborer/manager? is he a public servant (elected/appointed official)? is he involved in public safety (policeman/fireman/other)?

pseduoscience: religion? divination? oracle? astrology, tarot, I Ching, numerology, shamanism relevant? None of the above. Let me clear this up, it's not a common pseudoscience you'd find in a list, but by using this definition, it is one:

"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology."

son = the HAM, mommy = the HAF, or FA? Son = the HAM, Mommy = the HAF, that is correct.

Son's job: science involved? Yes or "pseudoscience"? Noish is he an artist(svv; includes writer, painter, potter, glass-blower, actor...)/healer Thisish /consultant/engineer/salesman/proprietor/laborer/manager? is he a public servant (elected/appointed official)? Otherwise, none of the above

is he involved in public safety (policeman/fireman/other)? Noish. No to those stated.

Did he have a disagreement with his mother? Yes Did he show her that he was right? Yes Get her to admit he was right? Probably this too In a very roundabout fashion? Yes, or in a very direct fashion, depending on your view on things... Hypnosis invovled? No Did he trick her? No

Did he demonstrate that he was right? Which took a lot of effort? When he could've shown her some simpler way? Did he demonstrate it on her (if applicable)? Did he do "everything" to convince her, when just a little bit had been enough? Did he use lots of: time? Energy? Money? Material resources?

Did he demonstrate that he was right? Yes Which took a lot of effort? Yes When he could've shown her some simpler way? Yes Did he demonstrate it on her (if applicable)? No, not on her Did he do "everything" to convince her, when just a little bit had been enough? He did "everything" to convince her, but a little bit would not have worked in this particular puzzle Did he use lots of: time? Energy? Money? Material resources? Time and Energy, lots.

Does he prove to his mother: that he can do something? Noish Be something? No Do both the science job and the pseudoscience other thing? Noish Does the proof involve him getting education/training to do something? No

Does he prove that: something is possible? Impossible? That something exists? Or doesn't? Does he trick/fool/mislead his mother? Does he prove that he can teach a pig to ski? ;-) Does he get his job in order to prove it? Does he do the pseudoscience thing in order to prove it? Does he disprove a belief his mother has? Or make her believe something that she was skeptical to before? Cold reading relevant? Mentalism? Magic tricks? Hypnosis? Medicine? Alternative medicine? Homeopathy? Placebo?

Does he prove that: something is possible? No Impossible? Yesish That something exists? Or doesn't? Does he trick/fool/mislead his mother? No to rest Does he prove that he can teach a pig to ski? Haha, you're SO close! ;-) ;-) Does he get his job in order to prove it? Yes, I'm sure that's part of the reason. Does he do the pseudoscience thing in order to prove it? Indeed he does this pseudoscience thing only to prove it. Does he disprove a belief his mother has? Exactly that Or make her believe something that she was skeptical to before? More what you said before Cold reading relevant? Mentalism? Magic tricks? Hypnosis? Medicine? Alternative medicine? Homeopathy? Placebo? No to all... small hint: it's not a pseudoscience that would be included in the LTPF list of pseudosciences. It just happens to fit the definition perfectly.

Is an animal invovled? Or skiing? Or other sports? Or is a person invovled? One (or more) of his patients? Is his mother's belief related to health or medicine? Mental health? Animals? Could it be called a superstition? Is it (part of) a religious belief?

Is an animal invovled? Or skiing? Or other sports? No to all Or is a person invovled? Only himself One (or more) of his patients? No Is his mother's belief related to health or medicine? YES Mental health? No Animals? No Could it be called a superstition? Maybe this, but I'd call it more of a scrund Is it (part of) a religious belief? No

Is he pretending to be a scientist? Is he a real scientist? Is she a real scientist? Are piggy banks involved? Is someone acting like a pig, so to speak? Is snow relevant? Winter? Cold? Games? Recreation?

Is health-care-providing relevant? e.g. socialized medicine, universal health care, etc.? Is the location relevant? The time period? Their political affiliations/opinions?

Does she need to be his mother for this to work? Is she his REAL mother? Is adoption relevant? Is either of them questioning their actual relation? Is one or more sex change relevant? Is abortion relevant? Does she have any other children? Are they grown? Is the father still alive? Are they still married? Is the son married? Does he have children?

Is anyone's profession relevant?

Does either have a health problem? Does either believe the other has health problems? Does either believe they have health problems? Are any other people relevant? Other relatives? Anyone else with health conditions? Is anyone pregnant? Is anyone thought to be pregnant?

Does the scrund relate to a certain medical condition? A body part? Does she consciously believe it as fact? Has she given much thought to it?

(Hominid) Is he pretending to be a scientist? No, he is a scientist. Is he a real scientist?So yes. Is she a real scientist?No. Are piggy banks involved? Is someone acting like a pig, so to speak? Is snow relevant? Winter? Cold? Games? Recreation? No to all the rest.

Is health-care-providing relevant? e.g. socialized medicine, universal health care, etc.? Is the location relevant? The time period? Their political affiliations/opinions?No to all.

Does she need to be his mother for this to work?I would say yes. Is she his REAL mother?Yes. Is adoption relevant? Is either of them questioning their actual relation? Is one or more sex change relevant? Is abortion relevant? Does she have any other children? No to all. Are they grown?Yes Is the father still alive? Are they still married? Is the son married? Does he have children?Irr to all.

Is anyone's profession relevant?Other than the son's no.

Does either have a health problem?No Does either believe the other has health problems? Yesish Does either believe they have health problems?No Are any other people relevant?Noish Other relatives? Anyone else with health conditions? Is anyone pregnant? Is anyone thought to be pregnant?No to all.

Does the scrund relate to a certain medical condition?Yes A body part?YES Does she consciously believe it as fact?YES Has she given much thought to it?Probably notish...

Body part: exterior? Interior? Reproductive? Head? Only in females? Only in males? Is the scrund itself about which gender(s) it occurs in? Does it involve his birth? Does he pretend he is doing scientific research? Does he lie about what the research concludes? Is genetics relevant? Genetic engineering? Are we assuming "pseudo" means fake?

(Hominid) Body part: exterior? This Interior? Reproductive? Head? Only in females? Only in males?None of these Is the scrund itself about which gender(s) it occurs in? Does it involve his birth?No to both Does he pretend he is doing scientific research?Yesish Does he lie about what the research concludes? No Is genetics relevant? Genetic engineering? No to both Are we assuming "pseudo" means fake?No, it's not fake, it just falls perfectly under this definition, which I will re-post: "Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology."

Is it related to the length of his fingers? I've heard claims that finger lengths can "prove" all sorts of things, so in this case, is it intelligence? Aggression? Sporting ability? Personality? Or (my guess is that this might be something to do with it) sexuality?

Torquemada Is it related to the length of his fingers? No I've heard claims that finger lengths can "prove" all sorts of things, so in this case, is it intelligence? Aggression? Sporting ability? Personality? Or (my guess is that this might be something to do with it) sexuality?No to all, nothing to do with the length.

(Hominid) Fingers: the bones? The skin? The nails? Fingerprints? No to all of these with a slight "ish" on bones, but good line of questioning.

Is it along the lines of a broad survey of people who crack their knuckles? Or people who have arthritis? Does it deal with the physical mechanism of knuckle cracking?

Did he crack his knuckles all his life? Did he work with people who did? And didn't develop arthritis? Or did he work with people who had arthritis and ask them whether they cracked their knuckles? And they didn't? Did he work in some capacity treating patients with arthritis, and take time in every new assessment to ask whether they cracked their knuckles?

Is it along the lines of a broad survey of people who crack their knuckles? Or people who have arthritis? No to both Does it deal with the physical mechanism of knuckle cracking? Yes

Did he crack his knuckles all his life? YESissssh Did he work with people who did? No And didn't develop arthritis? Right...HE didn't. Or did he work with people who had arthritis and ask them whether they cracked their knuckles? And they didn't? Did he work in some capacity treating patients with arthritis, and take time in every new assessment to ask whether they cracked their knuckles? But no to all of these.

Is the Yesish because he cracked his knuckles but not exactly for all his life? Did he decide at some point to crack his knuckles at every opportunity to prove to his mum that it didn't cause arthritis?

Is the Yesish because he cracked his knuckles but not exactly for all his life? Well, that would be another yesish reason, but the one I intended was different Did he decide at some point to crack his knuckles at every opportunity to prove to his mum that it didn't cause arthritis? Yes, I think this is getting very close to $poiling.

So he decided to crack his knuckles to prove that it didn't cause arthritis? And was anyone else involved in this? Or was it just him? Is the "pseudoscientific" element that only he did it, and he didn't have a control group?

So he decided to crack his knuckles to prove that it didn't cause arthritis? Yes And was anyone else involved in this? Or was it just him? Just him. Is the "pseudoscientific" element that only he did it, and he didn't have a control group? Well this would be one element of why it isn't scientific, but perhaps HE thought he had a control "group" of some kind... (slamming head against desk moment coming right up...)

(slamming head against desk moment coming right up...) Sorry, I don't mean to be dense! :o)

So did he know somehow that he wasn't likely to get arthritis? That he was? Did he count his feet as a control? Did he only crack his knuckles on one hand? Did he think he could take the global population of non-knuckle-crackers as a control?

(slamming head against desk moment coming right up...) Sorry, I don't mean to be dense! :o) Haha, you're not dense, you got it below!!!

***SPOILER***

So did he know somehow that he wasn't likely to get arthritis? That he was? Did he count his feet as a control? Did he only crack his knuckles on one hand? YES! Did he think he could take the global population of non-knuckle-crackers as a control?

-

Hope you don't mind if I join in, I've been lurking for a while on this one...

Was his mom the "control"? Did she have arthritis despite never cracking her knuckles?

-

"Ig Nobel Winner Shows Knuckle Cracking Won’t Cause Arthritis"

“Mother, I know you can hear me. Mother, you were wrong! And now that I have your attention, can I stop eating my broccoli, please?” Donald L. Unger raised his hands in mock rebellion. He had defied his mother’s words for three quarters of his life systematically cracking the knuckles on his left hand and leaving his right knuckles free for 60 years, demonstrating (if only anecdotally) that knuckle cracking does not cause arthritis. For this achievement, he won himself the Ig Nobel Award in Medicine, presented last night at the 19th First Annual Ig Nobel Prize ceremony yesterday evening.